Adolf
Hitler's name gets tossed around a lot. Someone who doesn't agree with another's
person point of view will call that person Hitler. We have all seen this type
of behavior, especially when getting into politics. What's amusing about these
claims is that most people have no clue about who Adolft Hitler was and his
beliefs and behaviors. We all know that he exterminated 6 million Jews. We know
that if someone disagreed with him, he would have his Gestapo disposed of them.
What most people don't know is Hitler's views on certain things such as abortion,
racism, guns, religion, ecomonics, and euthanasia. He also abhorred things like
tobacco and drinking. Hitler was also an animal activist and there is some strong
evidence that he was a vegetarian. Below is a quote from Goebbels, Nazi Minister
of Propaganda, noted:

"The Fuhrer is deeply religous, though completely anti-Christian.
He views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of
the Jewish race... Both [Judaism and Christianity] have no point of contact
to the animal element, and thus, in the end, they will be destroyed. The Fuhrer
is a convinced vegetarian, on principle. His arguments cannot be refuted on
any serious basis. They are totally unanswerable."

Below is an essay
written by Martin G. Hulsey for the Hitler Historical Mueum about Nazi's Animal
Protection. Read it and see if you see the obvious parallels.

On Usenet, it
is generally considered bad form to bring up Nazi Germany in the context of
any discussion. This perhaps results from the tendency of some participants
to equate their opponents with Nazis in lieu of providing rational arguments.

In various fora,
we have seen arguments suggesting that Adolph Hitler was a vegetarian. I have
seen this suggested numerous times, and, understandably, it usually results
in shrill responses from both vegetarians and animal "rights" activists.
I have made attempts to investigate these claims, and I have been only marginally
successful. It does seem that, at least, Hitler was not a devout vegetarian,
if it is appropriate to classify him as such. This brings up the question
of what properly justifies that classification.

There seems to
be a lack of agreement even among self-styled vegetarians. Some call themselves
pesco-vegetarians because they eat only fish. Others reject this notion. Curious
and fascinating arguments have occurred in rec.food.veg regarding the duration
of time within which a person must refrain from meat consumption before being
a "true" vegetarian. One participant sarcastically noted that even
omnivores are vegetarian "between meals." One participant in talk.politics.animals
calls himself vegan, yet has admitted that he eats animal products from time
to time. As an omnivore, I have little stake in what the consensus definition
might be, but I submit that some degree of consistency should be achieved
for the sake of argument. If Hitler is not properly classified as a vegetarian
because he occasionally ate sausage or squab (assuming that was the case),
what are we to make of the self-professed vegans who also backslide on occasions?

In my opinion,
those who object to Hitler being classified as a vegetarian are taking the
wrong approach. It is fallacious to suggest that one infamous person's dietary
habits reflect on the character of others who share those habits. One wonders
why most vegetarians don't offer that argument. I have noted on numerous occasions
that vegetarians will offer the name of some famous vegetarian athlete, scholar,
politician or musician as though this implies that dietary regimen is superior.
Proponents of such arguments should realize that they are equally fallacious.
Acceptance of such anecdotal evidence is a double-edged sword. That Paul McCartney,
Leonardo DaVinci, etc. were or are vegetarian in no way implies that vegetarianism
is a superior dietary regimen. To suggest otherwise is to make a fallacious
appeal to authority.

Putting aside
for a moment the veracity of calling Hitler a vegetarian, let us consider
some claims that have been made to that effect. Sociologists Arnold Arluke
and Boria Sax wrote a very interesting article (Anthrozoos 5(1):6-31; 1992)
that describes the familiar-sounding rhetoric that leading Nazis used to support
vegetarianism. For example:

"On one romantic date, his female companion ordered sausage, at which
Hitler looked disgusted and said: 'Go ahead and have it, but I don't understand
why you want it. I didn't think you wanted to devour a corpse... the flesh
of dead animals. Cadavers!'"
This is a strange declaration for a man who some claim, without direct evidence,
to have a preference for sausage.

If Hitler's date
did have sausage, it might account for the counterclaim cited by Hitler's
biographers (i.e., Rynn Berry) to the effect that He was not vegetarian. However,
an account by Hitler's chef that he prepared sausage "for Hitler"
may be mistaken and misleading if the sausage was, in fact, consumed by Hitler's
female companions, as it obviously was on this one occasion.

Goebbels, Nazi
Minister of Propaganda, noted:

"The Fuhrer is deeply religous, though completely anti-Christian. He
views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the
Jewish race... Both [Judaism and Christianity] have no point of contact to
the animal element, and thus, in the end, they will be destroyed. The Fuhrer
is a convinced vegetarian, on principle. His arguments cannot be refuted on
any serious basis. They are totally unanswerable."
Irrespective of whether Hitler, Goebbels or other leading Nazis were, in fact,
devout vegetarians, their self-serving rhetoric, claiming the moral high ground,
is consistent with that which has appeared from time to time on rec.food.veg.
In that newsgroup, we have seen omnivores characterized as "barbarians,"
"animal-killers," "murderers," and so forth. Clearly,
many contemporary vegetarians regard themselves as ethically superior to omnivores.

Claims of ethical
superiority are also a characteristic of the contemporary animal "rights"
movement. One can hardly find publication from that movement that doesn't
beg the question of "cruelty" with respect to practices of research,
sport or cuisine. The epithet "cruelty-free" as applied to cosmetics
has become popular in AR circles, despite its questionable veracity. Of course,
what constitutes cruelty is a subjective matter, and the practices proclaimed
as cruel by animal "rights" activists are more often that not legal,
despite the existence of laws prohibiting cruelty to animals.

Implicit in this
preoccupation with being "cruelty-free" is that non-adherents are
cruel. As such, the claim of ethical superiority is one indisputable parallel
between the Nazi animal protectionists and the modern AR movement. For example,
consider the claims of moral superiority and the references to Eastern philosophy
that are prevalent in the following translation of a Nazi article that was
kindly provided to me by a friend:

The following is a translation of document #186 in Medizin im Nationalsozialismus
by Walter Wuttke-Groneberg (Rottenberg: Shwaebische Verlagsgesellschaft) 1982.
The author of the book believes that this article demonstrated how the Nazi
party would gain support by appealing to interest groups whose main concern
were issues other than national politics. He also believes that the Nazi's
regarded these measures as progressive and he juxtaposes this "reform"
with the medical research atrocities in concentration camps.

The New Germany
leads all civilized nations in the area of animal protection!

The famous national
socialist Graf E. Reventkow published in the Reichswart, the official publication
of the "union of patriotic Europeans", the lead article "Protection
and Rights {Recht} for the Animal". National Socialism, he writes, has
for the first time in Germany begun to show Germans the importance of the
individual's {italics} duty toward the animal {end italics}. Most Germans
have been raised with the attitude that animals are created by God for the
use and benefit of man. The church gets this idea from the Jewish tradition.
We have met with not a few clerics who defend this position with utmost steadfastness
and vigor, yes one could say almost brutally. Usually they defend their position
with the unstated intent of deepening and widening the chasm between man who
has soul and soulless (how do they know that?) animals...

The friend of
animals knows to what inexpressible extent the mutual understanding between
man and animal and feelings of togetherness can be developed, and there are
many friends of animals in Germany, and also many who cannot accept animal
torture out of simple humanitarian reasons. In general however, we still find
ourselves in a desert of unfeeling and brutality as well as sadism. There
is much to be done and we would first like to address vivisection, for which
the words "cultural shame" do not even come close; in fact it must
be viewed as a criminal activity.

Graf Reventkow
presents a number of examples of beastial vivisection crimes and affirms at
the end, with mention of Adolph Hitler's sharp anti-vivisectionist positions,
our demand that once and for all an end has to be brought to this animal exploitation.

We German friends
of animals and anti-vivisectionists have placed our hopes upon the Chancellor
of the Reich and his comrades in arms who are, as we know, friends of animals.
Our trust has not been betrayed! The New Germany brings proof that it is not
only the hearth but bringer of a new, higher, more refined, culture:

Vivisection, a
cultural shame in the whole civilized world, against which the Best in all
states have fought in vain for decades, will be banned in the New Germany!

A Reich Animal
Protection Law which includes a ban on vivisection is imminent and just now
comes the news, elating all friends of animals, that the greatest German state,
Prussia, has outlawed vivisection with no exceptions!

The National Socialist
German Workers' Party { NSDAP } press release states:

"The Prussian
minister-president Goering has released a statement stating that starting
16 August 1933 vivisection of animals of all kinds is forbidden in Prussia.
He has requested that the concerned ministries draft a law after which vivisection
will be punished with a high penalty *). Until the law goes into effect, persons
who, despite this prohibition, order, participate or perform vivisections
on animals of any kind will be deported to concentration camps."

Among all civilized
nations, Germany is thus the first to put an end to the cultural shame of
vivisection! The New Germany not only frees man from the curse of materialism,
sadism, and cultural Bolshevism, but gives the cruelly persecuted, tortured,
and until now, wholly defenseless animals their rights { Recht }. Animal friends
and anti-vivisectionists of all states will joyfully welcome this action of
the National Socialist government of the New Germany!

What Reichschancellor
Adolph Hitler and Minister-president Goering have done and will do for the
protection of animals should set the course for the leaders of all civilized
nations! It is a deed which will bring the New Germany innumerable new elated
friends in all nations. Millions of friends of animals and anti-vivisectionists
of all civilized nations thank these two leaders from their hearts for this
exemplary civil deed!

Buddha, the Great
loving spirit of the East, says: "He who is kind-hearted to animals,
heaven will protect!" May this blessing fulfill the leaders of the New
Germany, who have done great things for animals, until the end. May the blessing
hand of fate protect these bringers of a New Spirit, until their godgiven
earthly mission is fulfilled!

R.O.Schmidt

*) As we in the
meantime have learned, a similar ban has been proclaimed in Bavaria. The formal
laws are imminent - thanks to the energetic initiative of our Peoples' chancellor
Adolph Hitler, for whom all friends of animals of the world will maintain
forever their gratitude, their love, and their loyalty.

Here we see a
writer in a socialist publication explicitly declaring that non-human animals
have "rights." Given the absolute control of the press by the NSDAP,
this constitutes an official proclamation.

In fairness, it
should be noted that the proclaimed ban on vivisection was less than absolute
in the entire Reich. Some German scientists continued to use animals rather
than humans for research despite the threatened penalty. The "antivivisection"
law that was actually passed was modeled after an existing British law that
did not constitute an absolute ban, despite official proclamations to that
effect.

Some might seem
content to totally dismiss the phenomenon of Nazi animal protection as a propaganda
maneuver, but Nazi animal protection ran far deeper than the proclaimed abolition
of vivisection. Consider this excerpt from Arluke and Sax (op. cit., p. 9):

"The preoccupation with animal protection in Nazi Germany was evident
in other social institutions and continued almost until the end of World War
II. In 1934, the new government hosted an international conference on animal
protection in Berlin. Over the speaker's podium, surrounded by enormous swastikas,
were the words "Entire epochs of love will be needed to repay animals
for their value and service" (Meyer 1975). In1936 the German Society
for Animal Psychology was founded, and in 1938 animal protection was accepted
as a subject to be studied in German public schools and universities."
Many individuals in Nazi Germany genuinely believed in the "rights"
of non-human animals, yet they simultaneously were capable of cruel behavior
against members of the Jewish faith. Not only that, but they went as far as
using animal protection as a justification for their inhumanity to the Jewish
people, as explained by Arluke and Sax.

Because the officially-proclaimed
absolute ban on vivisection was never codified in the Reichstag, the claim
that Germany's ban on vivisection was, in part, a propaganda maneuver has
some merit. However, this inconsistency provides yet another parallel to the
contemporary animal "rights" movement. The prominent AR organization,
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals or PETA, spent (and is still spending)
a large sum of money in a fruitless legal attempt to obtain control over the
well-known Silver Spring Monkeys. One could argue that this money could have
been better spent in other, less newsworthy efforts at animal protection.
There are other well-known publicity antics. PETA's penchant for pie-in-the-face
publicity stunts has drawn criticism from other AR proponents. For example,
Gary Francione was quoted as criticizing PETA for it's "Three Stooges"
approach to animal protection. Thus, like animal protectionist elements of
the Third Reich, it seems that some components of the contemporary AR movement
are, in part, highly motivated by considerations of public relations and propaganda.

Another point
that could be made regarding Nazi animal protectionists is that they were
inconsistent in their actions. When juxtaposed against the pronouncement of
a ban on vivisection and claims of ethical superiority, the treatment of the
Jewish people and hideous medical experiments that were conducted are arguably
inconsistent. Arluke and Sax offered additional examples that illustrate the
inconsistent actions of the alleged "...friends of animals..." in
Nazi Germany. Once again, however, we encounter another parallel with the
contemporary AR movement. At the same time that PETA was expending large sums
of money to obtain custody of the Silver Spring Monkeys, they killed 32 "liberated"
rabbits and roosters at their Aspin Hill animal "sanctuary" for
reasons of "overcrowding." One wonders why a portion of their multi-million
dollar annual budget could not have been used to provide suitable housing
for those animals.

There is considerable
evidence of acceptance of animal "rights" by officials of the Third
Reich, who have proven to be some of the most heinous villians of our century.
They loved those non-human animals, though. In Nazi Germany, practices such
as vivisection were characterized as Jewish (by relating them to the ritual
of kosher slaughter) and thereby vilified. Subsequently, reverence for the
"rights" of animals was used to justify the oppression of Jewish
people.

It is not my purpose
to equate contemporary animal "rights" activists with Nazis. Although
there are clear parallels, there are distinctions as well.

However, whenever
animal activists argue today that giving rights to animals will produce a
kinder, gentler society, it is perfectly appropriate to point out that the
only modern civilization to officially embrace a philosophy of animal rights
did not turn out to be more kind or more gentle.